The Training debate

[jester121]

Seems like every thread discussing pending or possible legislation has some tangential debate over training requirements (hours, cost, type, etc) but I didn't want to derail those threads.

 

I know some people are opposed to any training requirement (some on libertarian grounds, some for cost, some for pride reasons).

 

I am in favor of a reasonable training requirement. One that is widely accessible and comprehensive.

 

My main reason -- I think we are all a lot better off (as a pro-2A community) if the majority of people carrying have a solid, factual understanding of the ramifications of both carrying concealed in public, and the crap storm that will follow if they have to draw and fire in self defense. We know 100% that the media and antis will go bat-crap crazy the first time a CCW permit holder defends themselves, and if you think the Zimmerman-Martin deal in Florida was politicized, well look out. Our opponents will seize on any possible incident to try to enact more restrictions after the bill is passed, so I feel we owe it to future permit holders to abide by a little bit of inconvenience.

 

I don't buy the "too expensive" argument either -- if one cannot afford training before carrying, they shouldn't buy a gun in the first place -- go with pepper spray or something cheaper. The gun and training and permit cost are just the tip of the iceberg in cost, and people need to understand the immense burden (legal, financial, emotional) of carrying and choosing to defend themselves with deadly force.

 

I'm interested to hear other opinions on this.

[wtr100]

In a perfect world we should not be required to have training. Quite a number of us will seek out training , thus enriching the site sponsors, on our own.

 

But this is IL and there will be no shall issue law w/o it, you can take that to the bank. Plus it seems to me reciprocity will be more wide spread with training than with out. Best case scenario would be for NRA First Steps pistol to be all that is required.

[lowrider12]

I think training can benefit us too, if all the laws are explained during the class.

But then, maybe the laws could just be provided as a hand-out to go along with the CC license.

[Bud]

In a perfect world we should not be required to have training. Quite a number of us will seek out training , thus enriching the site sponsors, on our own.

 

But this is IL and there will be no shall issue law w/o it, you can take that to the bank. Plus it seems to me reciprocity will be more wide spread with training than with out. Best case scenario would be for NRA First Steps pistol to be all that is required.

 

+1 or the basic Utah Concealed carry training requirement.

 

the training requirement is directly linked to reciprocity.

[jester121]

I thought Utah's was pretty decent and reasonable.

 

I took NRA Basic Pistol, not sure what's covered in First Steps, but I don't recall Basic having much info at all on legal matters or carry concepts.

 

I also took Massad Ayoob's 20 hour class, and it brought home a lot of the seriousness of the issue. Not advocating 20 hours of that for everyone, but I think a lot of people don't really understand how the real world works when guns are involved.

[Sweeper13]

I started shooting ALOT more since Aug 2012, before that my firearms sat in a safe. FOR ME,Im glad I took a holster class and follwed up with a skills and drills class. It let me become more comfy with having a firearm on my side and how to apply proper techniuqe. IMO, I feel there should be some type of basic training.

[wtr100]

I started shooting ALOT more since Aug 2012, before that my firearms sat in a safe. FOR ME, Im glad I took a holster class and follwed up with a skills and drills class. It let me become more comfy with having a firearm on my side and how to apply proper technique. IMO I feel there should be some type of basic training.

 

Perfect case in point as a responisble adult you decided on your own that you need training.

[TyGuy]

Show me numerous reports of concealed carriers acidentally killing others, I don't find them. I've found 1 in my searches. Compare that to the multitude of accidental shootings by trained police. Before we restrict people's rights we need to show a compelling reason to, and I don't find such a reason.

 

Yes, expense is an issue. Should a poorer person on the south side have to spend $300 on a pistol, $100 on training, $100 for the permit, and $X for missing a day of work?

 

I won't oppose all training, but I don't care for it.

[Glock23]

I fully support a reasonable requirement for training.

 

1. Classroom. Regardless of what else is covered, the laws for your state should be either explained or provided in a handout. This way, some people will actually care about and learn the laws and restrictions... and it removes the ability for someone to use the "I didn't know" excuse.

 

2. Demonstrated range ability. If you are allowed to carry in public, I see no reason why you shouldn't have to demonstrate your ability to safely handle a gun and shoot at least somewhat accurately.

 

Undoubtedly, someone will mention the debate of drivers license vs ccw, privilege vs right... however, whether getting behind the wheel or going into public with a loaded gun, your actions and decisions can impact the safety of others.

[Drylok]

Everyone should make the concious decision to get training but noone should be compelled by force of law to get training in order to exercise a natural, individual, fundamental right. I say that as an instructor and as a constitutionalist

[Indigo]

Show me numerous reports of concealed carriers acidentally killing others, I don't find them. I've found 1 in my searches. Compare that to the multitude of accidental shootings by trained police. Before we restrict people's rights we need to show a compelling reason to, and I don't find such a reason.

 

Yes, expense is an issue. Should a poorer person on the south side have to spend $300 on a pistol, $100 on training, $100 for the permit, and $X for missing a day of work?

 

I won't oppose all training, but I don't care for it.

 

Show me that $100 training! More like $200 after the cost of the class, range fees, ammo, lunch, parking......

[Glock23]

Show me that $100 training! More like $200 after the cost of the class, range fees, ammo, lunch, parking......

 

Class aside, do you never go to the range on your own time? Pay range fees? Buy ammo, feed yourself lunch or pay for parking?

 

And for the record, I just did the training on Saturday for Florida. $125 plus my own box of ammo. Price included full day of training, lunch, fingerprinting, photo, range time, all class materials, and everything needed to sent to Florida. All I had to do was write Florida a check and put postage on the envelope.

 

And unless Illinois requires a fee be paid BY the instructors, returning to complete the paperwork and all that for the Illinois permit will be free of charge.

 

Not trying to instigate anything... just seems like an awful lot of people toss out arguments just for the sake of having something to argue about.

[Jfl0]

I believe a reasonable amount of training, when the price isn't a hassle, is a reasonable regulation under the State's power via the 14th amendment to regulate the 2nd amendment. I firmly believe, as an average joe that it is a reasonable restriction to ensure greater public safety. If the training program is similar to other shall issue states, then I see no reason to fight it.

 

I could care less about shooter's pride or angst. My thoughts are this. If I am carrying around a gun for self defense, I better damn well know how to use it. I expect the same of other permit holders, and they should expect the same of me. Training is one step further to ensure this and to prepare the student for studying the mindset of carrying and dealing with the aftermath.

 

I don't buy the "too expensive" argument either -- if one cannot afford training before carrying, they shouldn't buy a gun in the first place -- go with pepper spray or something cheaper.

 

Without seeing what the ballpark looks like here, I am going to disagree. This is a constitutional right we are talking about, not a privelidge (sp). This isn't some older men's club where men in their 40s and 50s can afford what they need. The fine line I draw between "is training a reasonable regulation or not" is the price. I can handle $150-$200 for everything sans ammo and the gun, but when you jack that price up to $500-$1000 I am going to court over grounds that the regulation is now an impediment to my right to keep and bear arms.

[45Badger]

I don't buy the "too expensive" argument either -- if one cannot afford training before carrying, they shouldn't buy a gun in the first place -- go with pepper spray or something cheaper. The gun and training and permit cost are just the tip of the iceberg in cost, and people need to understand the immense burden (legal, financial, emotional) of carrying and choosing to defend themselves with deadly force.

 

I'm interested to hear other opinions on this.

 

I think state mandated training is often a joke and overrated. Those with a financial interest in a training requirement (state certified instructors and state workers) tend to be the loudest in their disagreemnt to this.

 

I'm a (lapsed) NRA certified trainer in basic pistol and personal protection in the home. I live in MN (soon to be Wheaton!) and have had and used carry permits (concelaed or otherwise) in NH, PA, and MN for 20 plus years. Of those states, only MN had a training requirement. As an experienced shooter and competitor, and as a generally awake at the switch citizen, it was a joke. Other than some MN statute specific info (that common sense answers would get 90% right), it would have been a waste of time. As a complete noob, it might have had some value. Things I have noticed in comparing attitudes and facts-

 

- Licensed but "untrained" PA and NH gun carriers are no more likely to break the law, or have "bad shoots" than those "trained" by MN or other state with a training reqirement. Contrary to the fears of anti-gun folks (and under-informed gunnies) the streets are not running with blood and the courts are not clogged by all those licensed and untrained gun carriers. Really.

- Folks who have lived in states with no carry or restrictive may issue for a long time tend to think carry is more 'special" and requires/justifies more training than those who have lived in states with "normal" access to carry

 

I believe these folks have been effectively brainwashed by decades of being on the wrong side of politics, are grateful for any scraps thrown their way, and more easily buy in to the "training" hype (and other conditions). I am a huge fan of quality training. Not a fan of state mandated training. If you're goinna be in the gun world, shoot, compete, hunt, carry, or wahtever- you should get quality training. But that's what I think and it's not my right to insist that you think the same way. I can insist that you don't do me direct harm, but I cannot insist that your right to choose for yourself be limited by my fears of what you might or could do. Sound familiar?

 

To the last point quoted above- You statement is economic elitism. Almost as bad as outlawing cheap guns. I'm luckiy that can afford almost anything for training. Why on earth should I pay ridiculous fees or spend stupid amounts of time in what amounts to drivers ed for guns? Poor people deserve to have guns and training as much as the middle and upper economic classes. They oftern work multiple jobs that make training much more difficult to complete. They often can't get time off work or can't afford to miss a day's pay. Does that mean they give up a right?

 

Be careful what restrictions you're willing to accept in exercising your rights, and be very careful what restrictions you're willing to accept on another's behalf.

[jester121]

To the last point quoted above- You statement is economic elitism. Almost as bad as outlawing cheap guns. I'm luckiy that can afford almost anything for training. Why on earth should I pay ridiculous fees or spend stupid amounts of time in what amounts to drivers ed for guns? Poor people deserve to have guns and training as much as the middle and upper economic classes. They oftern work multiple jobs that make training much more difficult to complete. They often can't get time off work or can't afford to miss a day's pay. Does that mean they give up a right?

 

Be careful what restrictions you're willing to accept in exercising your rights, and be very careful what restrictions you're willing to accept on another's behalf.

 

It's not elitism of any sort. I'm saying that people would be well served by contemplating what financial ruin they'd find themselves in if they choose to draw their concealed weapon, and that hopefully some training causes the big talkers to do more thinking (we all know guys who go on about "I'd blow 'em away!" and so forth, the ones who seem like they're itching for a confrontation). I'm also saying that people tend to value something more when it cost them a few shekels, and hopefully would be more responsible about it.

 

Many people like talking in absolutes about how things should be, and it makes great fodder for signature lines, but that doesn't mean much in reality. I'm much more inclined to keep an eye on the prize, sure, but work on doing the stuff that has a chance of getting done.

[Indigo]

Show me that $100 training! More like $200 after the cost of the class, range fees, ammo, lunch, parking......

 

Class aside, do you never go to the range on your own time? Pay range fees? Buy ammo, feed yourself lunch or pay for parking?

 

And for the record, I just did the training on Saturday for Florida. $125 plus my own box of ammo. Price included full day of training, lunch, fingerprinting, photo, range time, all class materials, and everything needed to sent to Florida. All I had to do was write Florida a check and put postage on the envelope.

 

And unless Illinois requires a fee be paid BY the instructors, returning to complete the paperwork and all that for the Illinois permit will be free of charge.

 

Not trying to instigate anything... just seems like an awful lot of people toss out arguments just for the sake of having something to argue about.

 

The issue is not what you or I do, the issue is the burden placed on the exercise of a fundamental right. Someone making $10/hour has theoretical gross income of $20,800 per year. Just how much of their net income is appropriate for a permit for the right to self defense?

 

How do you make it as difficult as possible for a working poor person to obtain a concealed carry permit? First, inexpensive guns are banned as "Saturday Night Specials" (done long ago) or part of the "Unsafe Guns Roster"(done in 2010), then you require training that costs over a quarter of your week's pay. You make your permit fee as expensive as the training. All this for the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right. How hard is the decision to get the training you need for the permit rather than buying groceries, or paying the electric bill? If producing your photo ID is a "barrier to voting" for the poor and elderly, how much more of a barrier is this to the right to self-defense?

[TyGuy]

Everyone should make the concious decision to get training but noone should be compelled by force of law to get training in order to exercise a natural, individual, fundamental right. I say that as an instructor and as a constitutionalist

+1

 

@Indigo - that was just a guess.

[Indigo]

Drylok and I are in complete agreement. Practical considerations dictate a training requirement to get a CCW law passed. Personal responsibility requires developing competence prior to carrying.

[BigJim]

The problem with training goes beyond the dollar cost. For me the issue is time. I have a limited amount of time to spend taking a training class.

[vess1]

Excellent topic. (Disclaimer: I am not a trainer and receive no pay from training at this time.) Training is highly under rated because most people think they already know it all. In the past 10 months I've taken three courses.

 

- Utah permit course - 3 hrs NRA certified instructor

- Self defense and the law - 8 hrs NRA certified instructor

- Fortress Defense defensive pistol level 1 - 20 hrs live fire, over two days NRA certified instructor

 

Note: The more in-depth the course, the smaller the class size.

 

I've been familiar with many different firearms for about 17 years now. Last year, I was in the know it all category. Thought I didn't need to know any more than I already knew. Completely satisfied with my ability. Why waste the time and money?

 

After taking these courses, I think training should not be underestimated. I have no desire to make anybody's life harder or get in an argument with people over it. I'm just saying, I learned A LOT. Both in classroom and in practice.

 

There is so much more out there to think about than simply putting a gun on. And there's no way to know this stuff unless somebody teaches you. If after 17 years, I felt like a beginner, at what level is the person that just fired a gun for the first time? Are they ready to head out with a permit? I mean for their own sake and bystanders.

 

I completely agree that it's not about how everybody here thinks the world works so that's how it 'might' happen. You find out how it can and does work. You learn what to say and when. How to deal with police and the aftermath. I have no reservations in saying that most people on this board probably have no idea how to keep themselves out of more trouble, what to expect or how to even handle a handgun properly. I thought I did.

 

Everybody wants to think they're doing the right thing. Nobody wants to feel they are inadequate about something. I'm only saying some training is for your own good. Above and beyond what's required is better and should not be seen as a burden. It doesn't matter what the politicians say is the bare minimum. They have no clue anyway.

 

I have no doubt that few people will go to any decent training. I know people who enjoy their 2nd amendment rights but WILL NOT join the NRA or ISRA because "they're not that into it really". Well, if people cant put the effort into sending paypal to a gun rights organization from the comfort of their homes, there's no way in he** most people will get training (for their own good) either. If you leave it optional, people will do nothing because people are L-A-Z-Y. Are we better off with less or more accidents? You or your kid may be the receiving end of someones accident! On top of that, I want the good guys to make it out of the fight.

 

After a self defense situation your actions and words will make or break you. You may go home, you may be arrested, you may get a court summons 8 months later after you though it was over. What did you say? What didn't you say? Oh, you didn't say anything so you must have felt guilty about it??

 

For less than $500 you can have hours of training that could save your butt. Both physically and financially. You screw up in this situation, it could cost you jail time and 10s of thousands. Or worse, your life or somebody else's. On top of this, just because you get cleared criminally doesn't mean you're cleared civilly. They can and have found ways to bypass the civil protection everyone thinks they have from Illinois law. You better make the right decisions.

 

If this were Texas, maybe I'd lay off a little. Being in Illinois, you better have your **** together. Even then, it still may not be enough. People have no idea. Maybe I'm overly paranoid now, but I'd guess most are not concerned enough. Most people getting a permit won't have spent one minute on this board and may have never fired a handgun before. If you think they're ready, I can't convince you.

[vess1]

Drylok and I are in complete agreement. Practical considerations dictate a training requirement to get a CCW law passed. Personal responsibility requires developing competence prior to carrying.

 

Completely agree. In theory. In practice, its not going to happen. The ones who need it the most will not take the initiative. People are lazy. If every class was free, people would find excuses not to go. I would bet most won't even spend a little relaxing time on a range to figure their gun out. They won't want to pay for a membership and ammo is expensive.

[vess1]

In a perfect world we should not be required to have training. Quite a number of us will seek out training , thus enriching the site sponsors, on our own.

 

But this is IL and there will be no shall issue law w/o it, you can take that to the bank. Plus it seems to me reciprocity will be more wide spread with training than with out. Best case scenario would be for NRA First Steps pistol to be all that is required.

 

+1 or the basic Utah Concealed carry training requirement.

 

 

To me, the Utah class was 'ok'. The instructor did what he could with the allotted time. For the first time I was introduced to some ideas I hadn't considered before. It was an enormous amount of information, covering a broad range of areas, packed into 3 hrs. Q&A was rushed.

It was a general, basic starting point across all areas considered. Not comprehensive in any one area. I would guess student comprehension and retention of the material varied widely among the class when it was over. There was a test you had to pass.

[RockerXX]

Name another amendment (besides the 2nd) in The Bill of RIGHTS that requires training/classroom/testing before you can exercise said RIGHT...

 

If the answer is there isn't one, congrats the 2nd is no different then the other 9 amendments and that is what defines the difference between a RIGHT and a privilege...

[agalloch07]

I think some training is a reasonable idea but no more than 4-6 hours of it.

[johnsxdm]

I can see each side of this issue, but let me ask this. How many of you all have Utah or Arizona or Florida permit ??? Maybe you have 2 or all 3 permits. Why?? So you can carry is almost all of the U.S. . Would not it be nice if an Illinois permit was accepted everywhere because of our requirements to get a permit ? Me personally, I'd like the most reciprocity possible. This way I don't have renew the other 3 permits and save that money.

[BShawn]

At the base of my personal philosophy I am against training mandated by law. However, I have come to terms with the fact that having at least some form of mandated training will 'earn us' a higher level of reciprocity with other states for when traveling... That will (or could) be a benefit

[45 whit]

Good points made by all and I think we can all agree that there is a higher degree of safety through training.

[Blackhawk067]

I realize that most of us are proficient with our firearms, but I don't think required training and a few minutes on the range is too much to ask. Let's be honest, there are a lot of people out there who just don't possess the common sense of gun safety in general. There is a reason we have a lot of accidental shootings in this country. There are a lot of dumb people out there.

 

Not to offend anyone here, but I kinda of get tired of this "Why should we have to...." argument. Again, I realize that a lot of us have already taken the training, passed the classes, have other conceal permits, etc., but for every one of us, there are 100 who haven't. While I'm not an advocate of compromising on certain things in some of these bills, this is one I have zero problem with.

 

Now the cost issue....that is one I have a problem with. When I took my class in Florida, it was $40.00. Here, the costs are going to be redonkulous and that's something that should be addressed (I don't necessarily agree with the "if you can afford a gun" argument.....yes, many of us can afford it, but there are a lot of people out there who can't right now....and they already own a firearm or two).

 

As for the time factor, if we can go out and spend a day at the range shooting, or fishing or doing whatever, we can certainly give up ONE afternoon for 5 years.

 

As some have pointed out, it'll help with reciprocity. It'll help put at ease some concerns by those not comfortable with this bill and frankly, it'll smarten a few people up in the process.

 

As the OP pointed out, the positives far outweigh the slight inconvenience.

[TyGuy]

Show me the need. Show me story after story of untrained concealed carriers NDing all over.

[vess1]

 

As some have pointed out, it'll help with reciprocity. It'll help put at ease some concerns by those not comfortable with this bill and frankly, it'll smarten a few people up in the process.

 

As the OP pointed out, the positives far outweigh the slight inconvenience.

 

Well said. And I don't believe the 2nd is the same as all other amendments. Again, as I've said in the past, rights come with responsibilities. We live in an age of irresponsibility. If the first amendment gets abused around me, I can walk away and laugh. If the 2nd is abused out of negligence, I may be the backstop behind a criminal at a gas station before I know what's going on.

I completely understand the argument that other states get by without it. The key element that helps that statement out is the fact that the chances of a permit holder having to draw or having to take down a criminal (or criminals) is slim to none. So fortunately, most of the public won't have to find out how untrained most people are. It's not that easy operating a gun on the move, and staying accurate under stress. Then add in crowd. This is very hard to simulate, shooting basic paper targets by yourself on a sunny afternoon.

Id much rather have a halfway trained person next to me than somebody who just took a newly purchased pistol out of it's case and stuck it in the back of their pants. To me this is no different than getting a car license and policing yourself. If your eyes are going bad, you have a responsibility to stay off the road for everyone else's safety. I'd apply this standard to any object that other people use, that could potentially impact other people's safety.

 

I'm sure some will disagree with me and act like I agree with regulating soda cup sizes too. But a minimum level for everyone to be at shouldn't be asking too much. I too still believe this aspect is a bargaining chip we can give them. If it gains votes, the impact of this is minimal. May actually be helpful and effective. Far more than creating GFZ's.

 

There are many inconveniences in life. The value of this one far outweighs most others we happily accept.